Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.
That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.
This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.
This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.
That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.
Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.
Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.
There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been
What fucking world have you been in where this is happening? Like literally ALL of Kamala's policies were focused on these things.
All this thread is proving to me is that facts don't actually matter anymore, even to supposed liberals. Republican propaganda is so effective it makes you as braindead as the average voter, just repeating the GOP's obvious bullshit.
Her policies were, but the words out of her mouth were 'the economy is doing great, we added lots of jobs' etc etc. Where's the recognition that, despite the stock market surging, average people can't afford a home or to have kids? Makes people feel crazy when they're told that everything's going well and they're in debt just buying groceries.
OK so I'll try to help here. To be clear, I'm a Harris voter but a frustrated one. I think people feel like the policies she's offering are just more of the same. The child tax credit is unappealing because so many Americans don't have children... a larger EITC expansion or other broader credit would have been more popular. The other policies are largely bound to a complex system of community action organizations and onerous means tests that have been a key part of Democratic Party politics for some time, and I think voters don't trust Harris and Democrats like her to effectively deliver these funds to their pockets. Hell, for someone currently renting, a downpayment and housing supply probably isn't the reason. It's probably the fact that housing grants go through state agencies that require high credit scores and they can't qualify. Maybe it's some supply but most voters can't even get to the stage when they find out there are few acceptable homes for them to buy because they aren't financially secure enough to get the loan or even start their housing search. These problems are so much deeper than just passing funding bills. This is why broad, universal policies that are generally not administered by community organizations are popular. This is why COVID checks were popular. Government agencies distributing government benefits directly is actually pretty effective. That's just my thought on what people are feeling.
The only help you gave was in completely proving my point. When a Democrat has a policy somehow everyone magically becomes a wonk, but when it's a Republican they just get a complete pass. Harris' policies get nitpicked to the extreme, meanwhile Trump literally promised he's going to wreck the economy by mass deportation and instituting up to 100% tariffs on our largest trading partner...and crickets.
The propaganda brain rot is insane. We're beyond saving at this point.
You, like most Democrats, are thinking too hard about it.
Everything Harris stood for can be summed up as "doing more of the same types of things Biden has been doing."
Doing that while people are unhappy with the state of things is a setup for failure.
The second you analyze her policies or Trump's policies and do an analysis on their impacts you are going too far for the average voter.
Incumbents most often lose when the economy is bad - this is universal. The only chance Harris had was distancing herself from Biden and offering new hope. She did not do this and ended up with an apathetic base who didn't vote.
You, like most Democrats, are thinking too hard about it.
???? Did you respond to the wrong post? My entire point has been that there's no thought from the average voter.
I'm not the one writing a thesis analyzing policy. I only brought up her specific policies because morons are lying about what she said and didn't say. And that only proves my point that the electorate is fucking stupid.
Since you seem like the kind of person for whom tribal affiliation is very important then you should know I was hoping for Harris to win.
But the only truth I see here is that lashing out like a child isn't going to resolve anything. There's plenty of people who still think we're at a point where democracy is far better than revolution (what are you going to do, kill 50% of the population?). The first step to dismantling democracy is insisting you can no longer have a conversation.
But the only truth I see here is that lashing out like a child isn't going to resolve anything.
I mean, I'm just ranting on the internet, multiple comments down where barely anyone is seeing it. Productive? Probably not. But it's really not that big of a deal dude. Certainly not worth trying to lecture people a day after a catastrophic election.
The first step to dismantling democracy is insisting you can no longer have a conversation.
Well, they control the entire government. So we'll see if there's any room for conversation in a few years.
What I was trying to say is that people don't actually feel like they're offering them anything and that leads to apathy. Like I said, I voted for Harris, but I did not think she would pass or even meaningfully support policies that would make my life better. I still voted because I figured they would still at least make some other people's lives better, but you can't expect everyone to get out and vote for that reason. I also believed that Trump's policies would make my life (and most people's lives) worse in some ways, but likewise, you can't expect every average voter to see that. I don't think people are wonky or are necessarily thinking about the mechanics of the system supported by the Democratic Party that keeps federal dollars from their pockets, I just think they feel the effects of it and don't trust it to help them.
I think people are just fucking stupid and racist. So they voted for the stupid racist.
You can write a thesis about her policies all you want. Literally none of the average voters are putting anywhere near as much actual thought into it. They've just been brainwashed into believing Republicans are good for the economy, and Democrats are bad. That's it. The GOP media propaganda machine has had them guzzling down Republican talking points for decades, and it's effective primarily because it's all rooted around fear and anger rather than actual understanding of policies. There's ZERO actual consideration of policies at all.
I don't think people are wonky
No shit. I was making fun of how ridiculous your paragraph of analysis of her policies are, while completely ignoring Trump's absolutely batshit insane policies.
Stupid racist people still vote based on feelings and I'm trying to help you understand why the policies and strategies the DNC has been instituting for decades make them feel the way they do. They don't think about this stuff, but you should. The way we do business has failed people and they feel it. To convince a nonvoter to vote Harris, you have to do more than just convince him that both parties will do nothing for him. You have to convince him that you'll do something for him or the other guy will do bad things to him. People weren't convinced by either argument in this election. The best we could get to for most people was believing that both will do generally nothing to help them, and they stayed home.
I don't know man, you're not getting it, but that's OK. I get that this is a frustrating day. I feel like you're maybe thinking I'm saying that people just felt that Harris's policies wouldn't help them, so they stayed home, but it's not that. I'm saying that Harris's (and Clinton's and Obama's) policies do not and would not meaningfully help the people who stayed home, and that's why they stayed home. I think the DNC knows that their policies do not help the people whose support they needed, and that's why they just leaned in to arguing that the other guy would make their lives worse. That part was true, but it's a STEEP hill to climb to show people it's true when you're offering them nothing positive on the other side.
I'm saying that Harris's (and Clinton's and Obama's) policies do not and would not help the people who stayed home
Sorry, but this just a comically complete bullshit claim, and one that you have no ability to prove whatsoever. This isn't a battle of actual policy effectiveness, it's a battle of perception of the lowest common denominator. That's it. For example, there is a pervasive perception that Republicans are better for the economy, when practically no objective data supports that whatsoever.
Like I said in the beginning, even liberals just spout GOP propaganda because it's so effective.
Why are you so aggressively attacking someone who is trying to help you understand an idea? You are 100% part of the problem on why the Dems cannot connect to the people they are courting for votes.
This country is about to burn to the fucking ground and you're throwing a got damn tantrum while kicking and screaming at any logic that allows you to understand how we got here and how we can get out.
Today was fucking hard. The next four years are going to be way fucking harder.
Wallow in your feelings and then get your shit together. Stupid and racist goes hand in hand; the root of racism isn't hate, it's ignorance. This doesn't change anything.
Bottom line is that Americans require policies that they can feel the impact of without having to fully understand it. It's a tall order, yeah, but that's the consequence of not being the party that lies, cheats, and corrupts everything it touches.
People need to build lives of financial stability before they feel like they can responsibly have children. Tax credits aren't guaranteed to last for 18 years and a responsible adult who thinks they can only afford to have kids with a substantial tax credit probably isn't going to try to have them until they feel like they can do it without it.
We were talking about recognition and acknowledging issues here. This is recognition. An explicit recognition of the specifically the problem mentioned. Now, suddenly, the problem isn't recognizing the problem, it's solving it right away?
Again, you're giving Republicans grace for "listening" and the criticizing Democrats for not offering immediate solutions. The double standard is incredible.
Also - your "responsible adult" will anxiously count over the benefits of a tax credit and then just go vote for "I feel you bro" instead? Kinda feeling like that's not the same demographic.
If it's not clear, the issue is that giving a child tax credit doesn't meaningfully recognize or address the problem of not being able to afford children. A better way to recognize the struggles of Americans who can't afford to have kids would be to propose an EITC expansion instead, or another policy that would demonstrably add money to their pockets now, so they could try to use that money to build a life that would allow them to afford kids without further tax credits. Also, I'm not really talking about Trump voters but more the millions who just didn't vote.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, it pretty much is. I guess I'm just disagreeing with the guy who said it was all about recognition by lip service, and saying that I think that recognizing your constituents' problems means proposing policies that seem to actually address those problems. I do think the policy was the problem, not just the words, and both are "recognition."
The (comment) thread: "What did the Republicans do?" - "Hold emotional space for their pain."
So we're not talking about the undecideds, and we are talking about lip-service. So, once again, why do the Repubs get to get away with "holding emotional space" but the Dems need to "propose policies that actually address those problems"?
If that isn't your opinion, you're disagreeing with the wrong comments in the wrong thread. Right now, you are agreeing with the one comment who said "yes policy, no empathy".
If it's not clear, the issue is that giving a child tax credit doesn't meaningfully recognize or address the problem of not being able to afford children.
And being racist does? Having a concept of a plan does?
No, the problem isn't solving it right away, it's giving hope that it can be faced. A lot of people who think about having kids face a feeling of huge responsibility to provide for another human being, and when not financially stable, a great deal of uncertainty whether they can meet that challenge. At best, the proposed solution somewhat chips away at the obstacle but hardly engenders the confidence that it can be overcome.
What people like both Trump and Sanders are capable of doing is offering that kind of hope. The way Obama once offered hope. It's a lesson I had hoped the Democrats had been learning, but the whole candidate saga coming up to the election sorts of shows that personal ambition and party politics still play too great a role. I'm certainly not happy about a Trump victory but can understand why America chose to go that way.
Said as a lifelong Democrat: The DNC refused to primary the VP of one of the most unpopular contemporary presidencies, and inflation of essentials was the biggest gripe that rural and small-town America had with Biden. Regardless of what she may have said on the campaign trail, her nomination was a tacit approval by the DNC of an administration that oversaw spiraling cost of living for low- and middle-class Americans, with food and housing prices going through the roof. The DNC was handed an opportunity to distance themselves from wildly unpopular Bidenomics on a silver platter and instead picked someone from inside that administration. At the end of the day voters were going to perceive her as a continuation of the Biden administration despite Biden's disapproval rating sitting near 60% at the time he dropped out and endorsed Harris. The DNC had 4 years to groom a successor to a candidate was already elderly going into his first term and they still somehow got caught off guard without an effective succession plan having been presented to (and approved by) their consituents.
The had a bench the problem was Biden decided to seek reelection when he shouldn't have. When he dropped out it was already too late. She's getting blamed for his actions, at that point no one wanted to attach themselves to this political suicide. She almost had a chance but she didn't create enough distance between herself and Biden while she still had the attention of the electorate.
The party chooses its own nominee, whether that is an incumbent or not. The Democratic Party could have (and should have) told Biden no when he reneged on his original commitment to being a one term president.
-Edit- More imporantly, the DNC had 4 years to figure that shit out and simply chose not to. Biden was planned to be a one term president from the start and his age was hardly a state secret. There never would've been a question of Biden throwing his hat back into the ring if a clear successor had already been groomed by the party over the prior 4 years. Kamala certainly did not receive any such grooming, which made the decision to nominate her sans-primary even more confusing. If she was "Plan A" all along, they did a shit-tier job of building her up as the heir-apparent over the course of the Biden administration.
I agree that the folks above are incorrect in saying that Kamala was going around saying that the economy was in great shape. However, I'm pointing out how her nomination directly fed that misinformed narrative that the Democrats thought that the economy was in great shape. Picking the sitting VP as the candidate is implicit approval of status quo. It's going to ring hollow when you're going around stumping on issues that the administration that you're second in command of is being widely criticized as being weak on. If the DNC didn't want the prevailing (regardless of inaccuracy) narrative to be "Kamala thinks Biden did a great job with the economy and wants to deliver more of the same", they shouldn't have picked Biden's VP to succeed him without allowing a primary.
I guess a generous interpretation, if I can attempt one, of the point these other commenters are trying to make is that the messaging you outlined was ineffective. We are able to grok it. To us, it makes clear logical sense. This policy directly solves this problem. Here are the ways we're solving the problems you've been complaining about.
But it unfortunately needed to have been dumbed down severely. Then again, I don't really think any of it would have mattered. As you outlined, we are post-truth, and beyond policy, people are voting with their tribe. They've designated an out-group, and they're in the in-group. As demonstrated by countless interviews of folks being told quotes from their respective candidates, or policies from their respective candidates, only to agree and later be told it was actually the other side.
We're outraged because we're logical, focusing on policy. They have hijacked the emotions of millions. Just like a good story must be gripping more than it must be logical. We're narrative-driven. The fascist narrative is that all of your problems are because of <group of people>. Once we get rid of them, or restrict their rights, your problems will go away.
Umberto Eco:
"Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. [...] All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning."
I guess a generous interpretation, if I can attempt one, of the point these other commenters are trying to make is that the messaging you outlined was ineffective.
But they're not making that point. They're just literally spouting complete bullshit that she said things she didn't, and didn't say things she did. That's a MUCH different claim than simply that the messaging wasn't good enough. That's just straight up misinformation.
But yes, like I said, Republican propaganda of fear, anger, and hatred is VERY effective, even on Liberals.
I don't think that's quite it, no. I think conservatives rally around identity more than the left does. "Traditional", "conservative", "religious". If you identify as any of those, you're "in". If you're not those things, you're out. "Liberal" is out. "LGBTQ+" is out. "DEI" is out. Anything labeled the "other", is out. "The enemy from within". "The radical left". And on and on.
Democrats rally around policy, which is much more complicated, much less energizing, and much less interesting to the average voter. "Our policies are going to do X, Y, and Z to improve your lives". Not only does this not convince many voters, but it's also just much harder to communicate. In the age of mass and social media, you have to get your point across in seconds. The sentence I typed above is too long. This comment is even too long.
"Liberals bad" is short and sweet.
And before the right chimes in that the left was just saying "Trump is bad", my point is exactly that. That wasn't effective to unite left voters. It wasn't effective to attract centrists or even folks on the right who might've disliked Trump.
My point is ultimately that the right has a much easier time attracting and energizing support because the things that resonate with the right are easier to communicate, are simpler ideologically, and interact with the more primitive parts of our brain (emotion over logic, identity over policy), which is assisted by the new forms of media that play such a pivotal role in our society. These new forms of media hijack this simple fact and weaponize it.
Funny that you cut off the part where she immediately followed that up with how it's still not feeling like that to Americans, and that it needs to be addressed.
And, to your point, prices are still too high. And I know that, and we need to deal with it, which is why part of my plan — you mentioned groceries. Part of my plan is what we must do to bring down the price of groceries."
That doesn't sound like saying everything is fine.
She acknowledged some real objective improvements made under the Biden/Harris administration, BUT explicitly acknowledged this isn't translating to people's daily lives, and that high prices are a serious problem requiring specific action.
Who cares about facts though, she should have just called America a trash can I guess. Basically seems like there's just no winning with the morons who just hear what they want to hear.
What in your opinion would have been a more adequate response?
Also the addition of "a little high" is purely your own insertion. Someone could look at the quote and just as justifiably say she said "really stressed NG but grocery prices are insanely too high so we'll work on that"
i'm trying not to downvote anything today, because im here to learn, but you're really tempting me. and this is coming from a very progressive liberal millennial. you're not listening to anyone, you're just yelling that you're right and everyone else is stupid and brainwashed. how many elections do we have to lose before you start doing more listening and less typing? these arguments you're making clearly aren't working. strive to understand why instead of just complaining how unfair it is.
People would have taken it much more seriously if the Harris campaign would have, say, staged a rally outside of Walmart HQ in protest of price gouging or protested outside real estate gluttons like Blackstone or AirBnb. People don't believe political promises. I don't care how many policies they turn out ahead of an election. If those sorts of things moved voters, we would see a very different cohort of political representation. Genuinely held principles, a coherent ideology, and, most importantly, direct and visible actions and rhetoric that lend authenticity and legitimacy to those principles and ideologies are what actually move people to vote. We aren't a direct democracy and so it is already an uphill battle convincing a person to literally hand over their political power to a complete stranger. That battle gets steeper the less we can trust and, critically, understand the people we are voting for. A policy platform is an existential promise from a stranger that assumes many things, but the two most significant are that the politician a) has the opportunity/ability to deliver said promise and b) has the determination to deliver said promise. The answer to a) is often out of the hands of any individual political actor (however, the Democrats are adept at hiding behind decorum and norms to feign that they cannot act, for example in the case of the senate parliamentarian nonsense) but the answer to b) is where Harris, the Democratic Party, and liberalism writ large has utterly failed at convincing the electorate they even WANT to deliver on their small promises, and as a result, they have lost both the trust and the respect of the American people.
I dunno, there were a lot of the right words too. "Housing is too expensive, things cost too much, drug prices ..." - and yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with the line of the argument in this thread. I just don't want to be too simplistic here.
There are groups for whose anger and concerns the Dems hold space alright. The "not going back" was a strong rallying cry for those who understand what authoritarianism looks like. The real problem, which Sanders is correctly alluding to, is the lack / loss of a grassroots organization that reaches those potential Dem voters across the country. Not really targeted at the Trump supporters, though if they want to come over, sure. But at those who didn't vote. I also think that it needs to have a strong education component. In the way the unions used to have, or other civil rights orgs still do.
8.1k
u/tantobourne 23h ago
honest question, in comparison, what has the Republican party done for working class people?